The One Minute Apologist – The Resurrection

2 Comments

1. 

   John on April 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm

   Mike’s methodology is the problem with this video.
   Culture, not methodology, is the key factor in understanding the resurrection. The “3 questions/best answer” method Mike deploys in this video is ethnocentric & anachronistic. For one thing (among many) it disparages visionary seeing by calling it “pathological” or “hallucinagenic.” (Ironic since in antiquity such name-calling served to disparage persons – but this is another discussion).
   In antiquity bodies could & did exist in different forms and visions were real experiences conveying real information & knowledge. The method behind Licona’s understanding of resurrection is flawed as it imposes our modern, Western “consensus reality” onto an event that happened in another worldview hosting a vastly different consensus reality. He basically claims a “supernatural” event when in anitquity, there was no difference between “natural” and “supernatural” which are post-Enlightenment categories. In other words, for his method to work, Mike assumes what is called a “myth of realism,” that is, that our modern Euro-American experience is the same as anyone living in Jesus’ time and place.
   I’m a Christian & I know Jesus was raised. How the raised Jesus was experienced by those he appeared to was not the same way we experience bodies in our world.

   Reply
2. 

   Bobmo on April 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm

   I realize that this comment is a year old, but for those just now finding this post…
   I wonder if John believes that Jesus was raised bodily, so that while, according to his view, the experiences of Jesus’ followers were somehow different, the resurrection should be understood as a literal, physical event. This would seem to undercut his argument.
   Secondly, John seems to believe that truth differs across time and space, such that there is “Western, post-Enlightenment, Euro-American” truth and “Eastern, pre-Enlightenment” truth. I believe that this can be shown to be a self-defeating position.

   Reply